tinfoilhats.org

Over the past few weeks, I've become an avid follower of some of the Senate debates and the like. The issue that prompted this was s1805. This bill revolved around gunmaker and dealer liability, although that is not what made me so interested. I'll only briefly address that bill.

Early last year, the House of Representatives passed a very similar(substantially the same) bill, by a very large margin. This bill was expected to be passed by the Senate, at least fairly easily.

Flash-back 10 years. In 1994, Congress was debating a ban on "Assault Weapons". This ban might be better called an "ugly semi-automatic weapons" ban. I suppose that it would probably be better to let other people make the arguement for me, so here are some links about it. This ban included a 10 year sunset provision, and is set to expire in September, assuming no acts of congress.

I'll be honest, I want to see the ban go away. I want to be able to buy standard capacity magazines, instead of being limited to 10 round ones. I want to be able to buy a rifle that looks like something the military would use. Is it more dangerous than a similar semi-automatic rifle that shoots the same ammunition? I really can't see how the anti-gun advocates can make arguements like this and this. They do realize that these are not fully-automatic weapons that we are talking about, right? I don't know -- I guess maybe I just can't shoot that fast and accurately from the hip, but they seem to be pretty worried about it. Meh.

So, after that long tangent, we're back to the present day, and we have a gun liability bill before the senate. This bill, as I said before, was expected to pass. I'm still undecided on how I feel about it. On the one hand, frivilous lawsuits annoy me to a great degree, and with a concerted effort it would be possible for anti-gun activists(when did that become a bad word?) to take a manufacturer to court in several locations and cause a great strain, burden, etc. on the company. We have a word for abusing the legal system already, though, we call it barratry. Anyway, though, there may be enough congress-critters that think that it is important enough to do, and I can even see the logic behind it. Wayne county doesn't sue Ford when someone runs over a pedestrian while driving a Ford, do they? We expect people to know how to operate a vehicle before they try to, and don't hold the manufacturer responsible if the person doesn't, do we?

The real point of all this, though, is that over a few days, I watched a lot of Senate debate on this and other issues. It's quite an interesting thing, and I hope that I don't find myself staying addicted to C-span.

The Republicans brought the bill forward, and invoked cloture on it, meaning that the debate would be quick, and there would be no filibuster. After some debate, the anti-gun side added on amendments extending the AWB(Feinstein), requiring background checks of private sales that happened at gun shows(McCain) and various others. The anti side wasn't alone in amendments, giving police officers nationwide CCW, and various other things. In the end, the bill collapsed under the weight of all the amendments, and both parties asked that it be voted down. It failed 90-8.

Is this an example of legislation gone bad? Of the anti-gun democrats adding poison pills to a bill they didn't like? Or a way for them to try to ram through the AWB renewal? Is this an example of where the system works? I'm still not sure. It was quite the ugly, nerve-wracking process to watch -- most of the amendments and such I could live with -- I do, however, want to see that the AWB never gets another chance.

Speaking of AWB chances -- it's not over. This was merely the best oppurtunity for the Senate to get it passed. It could still be brought back, and I just have to hope that the house will stick by what it says -- not letting it see the light of day.

Ahh, a nice, long, rambling rant.